oh shit. super bad guy. glad i never installed a fucking client. fuck everything about this.

i don’t trust it because it is very big on the design meaning to be “censorship resistant” and there are certain kinds of posts that people make that probably should be censored, and while i like that some tools exist to make pseudononymous, censorship-resistant communications possible (tor and i2p are good. freenet is fine imho), this one looks like a grift that has a neon sign saying “censorship resistant”… and i am sure that associating with those people will lead to encountering some of that material that probably should be censored.

but write in candidates can win. McDonald’s menu options are disanalogous to voting.

there will be more than two names on the ballot, and write ins are always allowed. this analogy doesn’t hold up.

only a no vote is a vote for nobody. don’t spread misinformation.

a vote for any party is a vote against all other parties.

a vote for cornel west is a vote against trump.

claiming evidence exists is not the same as presenting that evidence.

I don’t understand why people mischaracterize him. he’s a good person. he’s smart.

a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

surely you can understand that the ai was not giving a complete definition, and you don’t need to know that you are being dishonest in order to be engaging in bad faith. simply accusing others of lying about their own position is, itself, bad faith.

edit:

you seem to be alright with going along with copilot. when i asked

if someone tells me they’re voting for jill stein, can i say it’s because they either don’t understand that she can’t win or they don’t care who the real winner is? is it bad faith to assume a motivation like that?

it said

Characterizing someone’s vote as either a lack of understanding or indifference to the outcome without knowing their personal reasons could be considered an assumption made in bad faith. It suggests a negative judgment about their decision-making process without evidence.

In discussions, especially political ones, it’s important to approach others’ choices with an open mind and avoid making assumptions about their motivations. It’s more constructive and in good faith to ask questions and listen to their reasons for voting a certain way. This fosters a respectful exchange and understanding, rather than attributing motives that may not be accurate or fair.

have a nice day

Why are we engaging at all?

because i objected to your bad faith characterization of another user’s comments.

You didn’t actually listen to what I said, you in fact deliberately and in bad faith edited out parts so that you could argue against what you want to argue against.

i made your position more succinct. you provided two options and said they were the only possible explanations, then said “that’s reality”. you constructed a false dichotomy. there was no nuance to your comment that would have undermined this construction of your argument. your assumption of other peoples beliefs and motivations is a bad faith approach altogether.

well i am not interested in getting bogged down in defending any particular motivation, i’m only trying to keep the conversation intellectually honest. it seems that you understand, now, that there might be other motivations, and as such that your previous accusations were in fact bad faith.

i asked copilot to weigh in on this. i have edited it for brevity (there was a lot of boiler-plate), but this is the last half or so completely unedited:

Whether or not someone is engaging in bad faith would depend on their intent and whether they genuinely believe in their arguments or are purposefully distorting the discussion.

It’s important to approach such discussions with the aim of understanding and addressing the actual points being made, rather than attributing motives or misrepresenting positions. This fosters a more productive dialogue and helps avoid the pitfalls of bad faith arguments and logical fallacies. If you feel the discussion is not progressing constructively, it may be beneficial to step back and reassess the approach to ensure a good faith exchange of ideas.

You are engaging in bad faith by misrepresenting my words to form a what you think is a strawman to argue against.

what straw man?

No, that’s reality.

stating your perspective about it doesn’t make it reality. you need to actually listen to what people say, and if you think it’s unrealistic, then you can say you think it’s unrealistic, but you can’t just assert that they can’t possibly have any other motivations.

They either believe Jill Stein will actually win … Or… they have looked at the difference and decided that it isn’t much

this is still putting words in their mouths. it’s not good-faith engagement.

No, they don’t care who wins because they are privileged and think it won’t affect them.

another bad faith statement. you need to ask them what they want, and believe their answer, or dialogue cannot progress.